More articles on this particular person. Obviously a talented man, just lots of shadow there. BTW, I see we can still find a few videos from Daymakers, but have all the Secular Heretic articles been taken down?
One of the comments below gets to an important point about creativity (and the lack thereof) and "inner life." A diminished sense of human capacity makes that capacity easier to imitate. The less creatively one thinks, the more likely one is to settle for AI solutions, and the more likely one is to elevate science to salvation. Much to take in, here, and my thanks for a bracing read.
Well stated, Allen. Thank you: "A diminished sense of human capacity makes that capacity easier to imitate." It seems to me, the repeatability criterion of science is involved directly with this difficulty. Your insight speaks also to the administrative push away from quality to easily quantifiable values... that essentially a robot can do. Did you catch this Substack? https://substack.com/home/post/p-114480649?r=didw4&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
Speaking of creativity, what about the "Infinite monkey theorem." Have you read the Wiki article on this? When you mentioned robots and quantity over quality, I remembered hearing about this theorem somewhere and wondered what you thought of it. If you have enough quantity (infinite) you can (according to the theorem) have quality too.
If you're referring to the monkeys accidentally typing out the complete works of Shakespeare, I believe this silly idea was debunked, but I don't recall when exactly or how. Stephen Meyer explains the difference between two kinds of information, essentially non-specific and specifically complex. A series of ten numbers chosen at random, for instance, will not enable you to make a phone call, but a specific series arranged with intelligent complexity will. Even if the monkeys did type out a line of Shakespeare, they wouldn't know what it meant, which defeats the purpose of the exercise. My own perspective is that we all know it's as impossible as flipping 100 heads in a row. The trouble is that the math says, "Why not?" Reality, however, begs to differ, and if anyone ever saw 100 heads flipped in a row, they'd smell a rat, and for good reason. This is one of the ways math doesn't quite align with reality. By extension, we can deduce that the monkey trial, which is done using computer modelling will easily say, "Why not?" when in reality, it's just silly.
Is it almost boilerplate now in 'scientific discourse' that science and technology, not religion, is going to bring us to God? It seems that way. I get the sense that AI funders and developers have absolute faith that they're in the process of creating God via the singularity. Their eschatological vision of transhumanism implies that only the true believers--a biblical remnant, let's say--will survive by shedding their vile, human, CO2-spewing parasitical bodies, and merging with the digital superintelligence, then abandoning this planet of finite resources to colonise the limitless reaches of the cosmos as some sort of pure, immortal consciousness divorced from materiality . . . even though consciousness remains one of the most insoluble mysteries of life. Becoming godlike is a serious ideal to them, I think, not some crackpot delusion, and it's taken seriously in cultural discourse. These are strange times.
A very salient take on these issues - and by coincidence, just last week I wrote a piece on this for Stranger Worlds, that will run in April. As you may know, my academic background is in AI (it was my Masters degree)... nothing destroys these illusions faster than studying the field. 🙂
As I've written elsewhere, the Singularity is non-religion's manifestation of one of the three forms of 'Dangerous Religion' that were taken for granted in Kant's time (namely, superstition). In some respects, it is quite harmless - but it does, as you argue here, point to huge gaps in the perspective of those who wish to claim the 'rational' high ground.
Well in a 750 word piece it isn't going to get technical. But, as they say, I do 'have platform' on the topic. 😁
PS: Having just revisited it, it doesn't get into the technical at all - but it does make a good companion to this piece! I'm hoping to get your piece into a Bazaar, but have been too thrown around in March for it to happen.
As usual a very sweeping essay. I like your optimism that A-I (which you would rename to A-T) can’t take over every existing system to run the lives of humans, but as we know humans with inferior faculties and those lacking creativity and “inner life” already do plenty of damage in that regard. A-T now enters this line of folks and has certainly dropped another challenge on our crowded doorstep; to bat back those who would use it for ill purposes. Enjoyed reading this but do wonder at your penchant for quoting Hughes so often…perhaps someone with a finer character could be found?
More articles on this particular person. Obviously a talented man, just lots of shadow there. BTW, I see we can still find a few videos from Daymakers, but have all the Secular Heretic articles been taken down?
All the Secular Heretic articles are available here if you hit Archive and scroll through.
One of the comments below gets to an important point about creativity (and the lack thereof) and "inner life." A diminished sense of human capacity makes that capacity easier to imitate. The less creatively one thinks, the more likely one is to settle for AI solutions, and the more likely one is to elevate science to salvation. Much to take in, here, and my thanks for a bracing read.
Well stated, Allen. Thank you: "A diminished sense of human capacity makes that capacity easier to imitate." It seems to me, the repeatability criterion of science is involved directly with this difficulty. Your insight speaks also to the administrative push away from quality to easily quantifiable values... that essentially a robot can do. Did you catch this Substack? https://substack.com/home/post/p-114480649?r=didw4&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
Speaking of creativity, what about the "Infinite monkey theorem." Have you read the Wiki article on this? When you mentioned robots and quantity over quality, I remembered hearing about this theorem somewhere and wondered what you thought of it. If you have enough quantity (infinite) you can (according to the theorem) have quality too.
If you're referring to the monkeys accidentally typing out the complete works of Shakespeare, I believe this silly idea was debunked, but I don't recall when exactly or how. Stephen Meyer explains the difference between two kinds of information, essentially non-specific and specifically complex. A series of ten numbers chosen at random, for instance, will not enable you to make a phone call, but a specific series arranged with intelligent complexity will. Even if the monkeys did type out a line of Shakespeare, they wouldn't know what it meant, which defeats the purpose of the exercise. My own perspective is that we all know it's as impossible as flipping 100 heads in a row. The trouble is that the math says, "Why not?" Reality, however, begs to differ, and if anyone ever saw 100 heads flipped in a row, they'd smell a rat, and for good reason. This is one of the ways math doesn't quite align with reality. By extension, we can deduce that the monkey trial, which is done using computer modelling will easily say, "Why not?" when in reality, it's just silly.
Is it almost boilerplate now in 'scientific discourse' that science and technology, not religion, is going to bring us to God? It seems that way. I get the sense that AI funders and developers have absolute faith that they're in the process of creating God via the singularity. Their eschatological vision of transhumanism implies that only the true believers--a biblical remnant, let's say--will survive by shedding their vile, human, CO2-spewing parasitical bodies, and merging with the digital superintelligence, then abandoning this planet of finite resources to colonise the limitless reaches of the cosmos as some sort of pure, immortal consciousness divorced from materiality . . . even though consciousness remains one of the most insoluble mysteries of life. Becoming godlike is a serious ideal to them, I think, not some crackpot delusion, and it's taken seriously in cultural discourse. These are strange times.
I think you hit the nail on the head here. Mary Midgley says something similar in her book, Science as Salvation.
A very salient take on these issues - and by coincidence, just last week I wrote a piece on this for Stranger Worlds, that will run in April. As you may know, my academic background is in AI (it was my Masters degree)... nothing destroys these illusions faster than studying the field. 🙂
As I've written elsewhere, the Singularity is non-religion's manifestation of one of the three forms of 'Dangerous Religion' that were taken for granted in Kant's time (namely, superstition). In some respects, it is quite harmless - but it does, as you argue here, point to huge gaps in the perspective of those who wish to claim the 'rational' high ground.
Stay wonderful!
Thanks, Chris. Looking forward to your piece on the subject. Great to hear about it from someone in the know.
Well in a 750 word piece it isn't going to get technical. But, as they say, I do 'have platform' on the topic. 😁
PS: Having just revisited it, it doesn't get into the technical at all - but it does make a good companion to this piece! I'm hoping to get your piece into a Bazaar, but have been too thrown around in March for it to happen.
As usual a very sweeping essay. I like your optimism that A-I (which you would rename to A-T) can’t take over every existing system to run the lives of humans, but as we know humans with inferior faculties and those lacking creativity and “inner life” already do plenty of damage in that regard. A-T now enters this line of folks and has certainly dropped another challenge on our crowded doorstep; to bat back those who would use it for ill purposes. Enjoyed reading this but do wonder at your penchant for quoting Hughes so often…perhaps someone with a finer character could be found?
Glad you enjoyed, Karen. Would you care to elaborate on the trouble with Hughes's character?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/entertainment/books/ted-hughes-a-controversial-biography-shows-the-poets-darker-side/2015/10/06/e67f6a90-6930-11e5-8325-a42b5a459b1e_story.html
Apologies if this sounds tactless, but have you read many biographies?